JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This criminal revision has been directed against the Order dated 06.12.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (ACB), Dhanbad in Special Case No.27 of 2017 {M.C.A. No.2005 of 2018} whereby and whereunder the learned court below has rejected the prayer for discharge of the revision petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the revision petitioner who was posted as Block Development Officer; was found in possession of Rs.50,000/- of alleged bribe money. Hence, after investigation of the case, A.C.B. has submitted the charge-sheet. Thereafter, prayer for discharge was made by the petitioner which has been rejected by the trial court, by the impugned order.

4. Though several grounds have been agitated by the revision petitioner in the criminal revision petition but at the time of hearing, Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, after some arguments, submits that he is confining his submission only to the sole ground that the accused-petitioner agitated the ground that the sanction for prosecution is not passed by the competent authority but the learned trial court without considering the said ground has rejected the petition for discharge without expressing any opinion regarding the validity of the sanction. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Secretary Personnel is the Competent Authority to sanction the prosecution of the accused-petitioner but the sanction of prosecution in this case having not been signed by the Secretary, Personnel Department, Government of Jharkhand rather the Principal Law Secretary having signed the sanction of prosecution on behalf of the Government of Jharkhand, the same is not a proper sanction. In support of its contention, Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C.B.I. vs. Ashok Kumar Agrawal & Others reported in AIR 2014 SC 827 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in paragraph-9:-

9. “In view of the above, we do not find force in the submissions advanced by Shri Vishwanathan, learned ASG that the competent authority can delegate its power to some other officer or authority, or the Hon'ble Minister could grant sanction even on the basis of the report of the SP. The ratio of the judgment relied upon for this purpose, in A. Sanjeevi Naidu etc. v. State of Madras and Anr., AIR 1970 SC 1102, is not applicable as in the case of grant of sanction, the statutory authority has to apply its mind and take a decision whether to grant sanction or not”.

It is further submitted by Mr. A. K. Das that as the sanction for prosecution of the accused-petitioner is not proper, hence, the accused-petitioner be discharged.

5. Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the A.C.B. on the other hand defends the impugned order and submits that the sanction of the prosecution is proper. It is further submitted by Mr. Verma that the sanction for prosecution, the copy of which is in page-63 of the brief, clearly indicates that the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department of Jharkhand has referred the matter to the Law Department and as any of the Secretary can represent the Government, so, the sanction of prosecution by the Principal Secretary-cum-Law Legal Remembrance, Law Department, Government of Jharkhand is proper. Mr. Verma submits that the validity of a sanction of prosecution is to be decided at the stage of trial and not at the nascent stage of framing the charge. In support of its contention, Mr. Verma relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C.B.I. vs. Mrs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agrawal & Another (Cr. Appeal No.1489-90 of 2019) date of the judgment is 25.09.2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under in paragrapgh-13:-

13. “Further the issue relating to validity of the sanction for prosecution could have been considered only during tr